6 ms·

Couldn't you just submit patches under a pseudonym?

• dredmorbius 8y ago
  Linux kernel, as an example, expressly rejects this. Source: multiple discussion with GKH.
• bunderbunder 8y ago
  I think that, if you were to ask open source maintainers, "What would you think of me committing fraud to get around your project's policies?" most of them would say, "Thanks, but no thanks."
  • avar 8y ago
    You'd be surprised. I have first & second-hand experience with the maintainers of GNU projects just agreeing to accept patches on the sly and commit them as themselves with the consent of the submitter because the submitter can't be bothered to sign a copyright release form.
  • jtl999 8y ago
    I do understand your point, but I wouldn't spin it that way or bring it up with them, just start committing using a "new" identity, assuming they have no knowledge of your "main" identity. Easier said then done.
    • bunderbunder 8y ago
      That dishonesty is exactly what makes it fraudulent. They're asking you to sign some legal documentation. If you forge a signature rather than getting it signed by your employer, that's fraud. If you create a false identity in order to hide the fact that you have an employer, that's also fraud. You have exactly two legal (and, just as importantly, honest) options in this situation: Get permission from your employer before contributing, or don't contribute. If you like the project and don't want to create trouble for its maintainers, you will pick one of those two options.
      • gbraad 8y ago
        The reason this permission exists is that contributions will not be owned by your employer, but will be part of the project. It depends on your employer if they allow you to work on personal software that they do not claim ownership for or not. I think you are right to not use a pseudonym. I once did, and regret having done so.
        • feanaro 8y ago
          Out of curiosity, why do you regret it?
        • jtl999 8y ago
          > I think you are right to not use a pseudonym. I once did, and regret having done so. Did it cause you some problems later, or?
        • bunderbunder 8y ago
          Well, the permission exists to ensure that the contributions will be owned by the project and not anyone's employer. If that permission isn't secured, though, and the employee has a contract with their employer that signs ownership of some or all of their off-hours work over to their employer, and the employer decides to try and exercise those rights, then it's anyone's guess who the real owner would be. Might vary by jurisdiction. Might be down to whether the open source project can afford to lawyer up in the first place. Given all that, a FOSS project isn't unwise for asking for a permission slip. You could argue that it's being over-cautious, but that's the project maintainer's decision, and it deserves to be respected.
          • cyphar 8y ago
            Contributions can be owned by employers and things still work. That's how Linux development works for instance, and the DCO is arguably a similar "permission slip" (though it mainly depends on the honour system with contributors just asserting they have the right to contribute). Some CLAs are very similar to the DCO (for instance, the Apache CLAs or the Google/Kubernetes ones).